Phil’s Diary - [Blog @ http://www.philsdiary.net/]
I find this sentiment quite strange.
After all as a society we seem to spend a lot of time, money and effort trying to make our kids more intelligent, better behaved. And a fair bit more dealing with those that don’t fit.
What’s the problem then with giving it all a head start. Surely if we could ensure that an entire countries worth of kids had a “good behaviour” gene, we could reduce crime to virtually non-existed.
Likewise, if we could bread a population of Einsteins, we could further humanity in record time.
It might seem a bit extreme, but if you’re a parent I’d put money on the fact that you’re trying to drum these traits into your kids already. Nagging at them to do their homework, rewarding them for doing well in tests. All to make them better at school. Likewise with behaviour, because you don’t want a kid who spends half his time down at the police station explaining why he’s been vandalising, breaking into cars and joyriding.
Ok, so maybe a move like this wouldn’t benefit me too much. After all I’d start looking positively stupid against these new super kids. But at the end of the day surely the advancement of humanity, the bigger picture, is a little more important?
Anyone got any good reasons why something like this would be a really bad idea? Let me know, comment below.
Posted by Phil on October 02, 2002 07:43 AM | Categories: Thoughts
Those are some pretty valid points you've got there. I guess that in a simple world my plan would be valid, but you're right, social pressures and other problems are more likely to make things a mess.
Better go and rethink my plan for world domination!
Posted by: Phil at October 3, 2002 4:57 PM
Good behaviour, intelligence, etc. are not inherited.
What is inherited is the capacity. You can stuff a kid with 'Einstein' genes, if you don't teach it well it will still be stupid.
Same thing with good behaviour. Giving the kid good genes and then no care and plenty of bad exapmles won't work.
Then you get fashion playing in. Today every-one wants to have nice, cooperative kids so you get your boy the good set of genes for that. In two years time some more aggressive traits become fasionable. Your kid can't adapt well because he has no 'innate' aggression so he'll be bullied around by younger kids once he is in school.
You will also get kids suing their parents for choosing the wrong genetic setup. Or even for not choosing.
Say you select genes for intelligence and appearance but forget one or two genes on the behaviour sid. Your son later becomes a criminal and robs a bank. He is very intelligent and though everyone knows he has done it they can't pin him down with enough evidence. Now the bank sues you because, by selecting his genes, created a good looking super-villain.
Another possible problem will be cost. Selecting genes is not cheap. It is also not essential to life, it is a form of luxury. So the chance of being paied back by health insurance is small. So rich parents will get 'good' kids while non-rich parents won't.
This is a problem that cuts with the current checks on known 'disease' and 'health' genes. If they find a gene that increases the risk for getting cancer insurance companies will be able to adjust their rates depending on their clients genetic setup. Today that is not yet a problem because the genetic setup of most people is unknown. When selecting genes becomes more common it will be.
Posted by: sjon at October 3, 2002 7:31 AM